[governance] Clinton Admits: "Free" Trade is Harmful to 3rd

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Parminder wrote:
> McTim
> 
> You seriously believe ICANN is a civil society organisation!?
> 
> Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your 
> email to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is  a 
> 'natural monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is 
> definitionally a social sub-system denoting pluralism, 
> non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly etc.... How could an organisation do a 
> 'natural monopoly' function and be civil society?

I think this is too static an understanding of the provision of 
monopolies. There are examples of monopoly functions which were provided 
by civil society organizations. One of them is the TÜV, the German 
equivalent of what the English call MOT. The TÜV has been responsible 
for all sorts of safety regulations for more than 100 years, including 
mandatory vehicle inspection. The latter function is now privatized and 
subject to competition. Still, the TÜV has clearly civil society roots.

jeanette
> 
> Parminder
> 
> McTim wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>   
>>>> BTW, methinks that you might want to (in the interest of full
>>>> disclosure) let us know if you are still under contract with the ITU 
>>>> in re: IP address distribution issues.
>>>>       
>>> McTim
>>>
>>> I am touched by your concern for conflict of interest issues :).
>>>
>>> In fact very often I do think of the basis of legitimacy of civil society
>>> and I find issues of transparency, responding to critiques and other
>>> questions immediately and always, accountability, proof of action/
>>> performance vis a vis ideals upheld etc as key in this regard. 'Conflict of
>>> interest' issues are very important here, and very high standards of
>>> disclosure must be maintained. As importantly, structural situations of any
>>> such conflicts of interests should be avoided, and in any case openly
>>> discussed, and responded to.
>>>
>>> However, I do find it strange and incongruous that whenever we have tried to
>>> discuss on this list conflict of interest issues implicating people in
>>> important management positions of bodies  involved in Internet policy-making
>>> seeking to represent civil society, you have repeatedly taken up the defence
>>> such practises, and pooh poohed considerations of conflict of interest. Can
>>> you please explain the double standards being employed by you in this
>>> regard.
>>>     
>>
>> As I have explained many times before, I see the current IG orgs
>> (ICANN/IETF/ISOC/RIRs/ccTLD bodies, etc as CS orgs.  At least
>> according to LSE and Wikipoedia and most other definitions of CS I can
>> find online.
>>
>>
>>
>>   
>>> It is important to note that the issue you point out in this case is just a
>>> possible one-off contract of research/ study etc (though I agree with your
>>> demand for full disclosure) , while the practices you have defended pertains
>>> to people actually occupying key permanent positions in Internet policy
>>> making bodies, whereby they are organisationally bond to represent the
>>> interests of their employing organisation.
>>>     
>>
>>
>> exactly, they are bound to represent their CS orgs.  Just as you
>> represent yours.
>>
>>   
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t